Can Vatican II's Teaching on Religious Liberty Be Reconciled with Tradition?

[Lief_Erikson]

I’m saying heresy as defined in the Code is not used/interpreted by the Church to mean that Orthodox and Protestants today are necessarily (a priori) heretics. Read canon 751. It sets a pretty high bar for what can be judged actual heresy.

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt, after baptism, of a truth which must be believed by divine and catholic faith. Apostasy is the total repudiation of the christian faith. Schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

Canon 751 does not appear to set a very high bar. It describes heresy as the obstinate denial or doubt of a truth that is part of Sacred Tradition. This would describe the rejection of the infallibility of the Pope, which affects the Orthodox. And it definitely describes Protestants. Certainly these are Christians. If they weren’t, they couldn’t be heretics, for no non-Christian can be a heretic.

Heresy is simply disagreeing with one or more of the infallible truths of Sacred Tradition. The reason Pope Benedict XVI said, when he was Cardinal Ratzinger, that most Protestants today are not guilty of heresy is that most are not guilty of formal heresy. They definitely are all guilty of material heresy, provided they’ve been properly baptized (some of them haven’t; some denominations say they don’t need water baptism because they have the baptism of the Holy Spirit and that’s all they need). Cardinal Ratzinger wasn’t disagreeing with their being material heretics. But formal heresy is willfully chosen heresy, the choice to reject a truth of the Catholic faith that the Spirit has revealed to the heart.

A smaller number of Protestants have committed formal heresy, which is a sin that can be mortal and damn souls, depending on the degree with which it is committed.

 

[diggerdomer]

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt, after baptism, of a truth which must be believed by divine and catholic faith. Apostasy is the total repudiation of the christian faith. Schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

Canon 751 does not appear to set a very high bar. It describes heresy as the obstinate denial or doubt of a truth that is part of Sacred Tradition. This would describe the rejection of the infallibility of the Pope, which affects the Orthodox. And it definitely describes Protestants. Certainly these are Christians. If they weren’t, they couldn’t be heretics, for no non-Christian can be a heretic.

Heresy is simply disagreeing with one or more of the infallible truths of Sacred Tradition. The reason Pope Benedict XVI said, when he was Cardinal Ratzinger, that most Protestants today are not guilty of heresy is that most are not guilty of formal heresy. They definitely are all guilty of material heresy, provided they’ve been properly baptized (some of them haven’t; some denominations say they don’t need water baptism because they have the baptism of the Holy Spirit and that’s all they need). Cardinal Ratzinger wasn’t disagreeing with their being material heretics. But formal heresy is willfully chosen heresy, the choice to reject a truth of the Catholic faith that the Spirit has revealed to the heart.

A smaller number of Protestants have committed formal heresy, which is a sin that can be mortal and damn souls, depending on the degree with which it is committed.

No it’s not simply disagreeing. “Simply” is not necessarily “obstinate.” Regarding the role of the Pope, I’d encourage you to read Ut Unum Sint (from Pope John Paul II).

 

[Lief_Erikson]

No it’s not simply disagreeing. “Simply” is not necessarily “obstinate.”

If you’re right about this, then the law is simply talking about formal heresy, but that doesn’t mean it’s denying the reality of material heresy. It’s common for someone in material heresy to slip into formal heresy a bit from time to time, without going all the way.

 

[yosupman]

I’m saying heresy as defined in the Code is not used/interpreted by the Church to mean that Orthodox and Protestants today are necessarily (a priori) heretics. Read canon 751. It sets a pretty high bar for what can be judged actual heresy.

Lief has been right in this conversation. Protestants are material heretics. I don’t think Lief is saying this in a derogatory way. It’s just a fact.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

books.google.com/books?id=X5rcnhLnRYMC&pg=PA916&lpg=PA916&dq=What+is+%22submission+of+the+intellect%22+%22assent+of+faith%22&source=bl&ots=Exp6nuMKYB&sig=lZ9TFuN9HiZ7KcT-2tTbkfClMc4&hl=en&ei=-uMtS4XNDo7osQOYounGBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=What%20is%20%22submission%20of%20the%20intellect%22%20%22assent%20of%20faith%22&f=false

See pages 916-917 of the book accessible through this link. This is a commentary on the canon law and provides a good explanation of “religious submission of intellect and will.” It affirms what I’ve been saying, that I am not required to agree with Dignitatis Humanae.

I put in bold a couple significant parts below the canon law, though the bolds are not in the text, because the first point I bolded explains submission of intellect and the second explains that dissent is allowed when we believe there is a preponderance of evidence against it.

Here goes!

New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, by John P. Beal, James A. Coriden, Thomas J. Green

Canon 752 - Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.

Nearly all the teaching of the pope and the college of bishops is non-definitive. This includes papal encyclicals, letters, and constitutions, as well as the documents of ecumenical councils. This canon attempts to describe the response which the faithful ought to give to this solemn but non-infallible teaching. It clearly distinguishes this response from “the assent of faith,” which is due only to what is contained in divine revelation.

The canon uses the technical expression “religiosum obsequium intellectus et voluntatis,” here rendered as “a religious submission of the intellect and will.” An exact translation of obsequium is difficult, but “submission” is not the best one because it exaggerates the force of the Latin. Such English terms as “respect,” “deference,” “concurrence,” “adherence,” “compliance,” or “allegiance” would be better translations of obsequium.

The point is not precision of language so much as the appropriate response to truth. The pope and the college of bishops exercise their authentic teaching authority even when they teach in a non-definitive manner. The proper reception of that teaching is usually acceptance, because the teaching enjoys a strong presumption of correctness. However, that same teaching authority has been mistaken in the past, for example in regard to the teachings of Galileo Galilei, and almost surely will be mistaken sometimes in the future. Hence, it would be wrong to expect the faithful to give absolute or unconditional obedience to it. That is what the canon points out: what is due to this authentic but non-infallible teaching is not the assent of faith but a respectful religious deference of intellect and will, and an avoidance of teachings which do not concur with it. The canon leaves room for dissent when such honest disagreement is based on preponderant evidence.

The principal source for the canon is Lumen Gentium 25. Among other things, the conciliar text recalls that these teachings are not all of the same import or weight; the level of the doctrine is indicated by the nature of the document, the repetition of the teaching, and the tenor of the language used to express it. (See also UR 11 on the intrinsic hierarchy of truths.)

This canon should also be viewed alongside canon 212 .1 on the Christian obedience due to bishops as teachers of faith, and canon 218 on theological freedom of inquiry and expression, both in the section on the obligation and rights of all the Christian faithful.

A penal provision related to this canon was added to the 1983 code at the last minute; i.e., it did not appear in its present form in the draft approved by the Commission for Revision in 1981. Canon 1371 .1 provides for the possible punishment, after official admonition, of one who pernaciously rejects the kind of non-definitive teaching described in canon 752. This intemperate provision ill accords with the duty and freedom to search for truth affirmed above in canons 748 and 218. It gives the impression that the Church is intolerant of legitimate debate or opposed to the development of doctrine. This punitive provision was not included in the 1990 Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (cf. CCEO 1436 .2).

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Protestants are material heretics. I don’t think Lief is saying this in a derogatory way.

That’s right.

 

[yosupman]

books.google.com/books?id=X5rcnhLnRYMC&pg=PA916&lpg=PA916&dq=What+is+%22submission+of+the+intellect%22+%22assent+of+faith%22&source=bl&ots=Exp6nuMKYB&sig=lZ9TFuN9HiZ7KcT-2tTbkfClMc4&hl=en&ei=-uMtS4XNDo7osQOYounGBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=What%20is%20%22submission%20of%20the%20intellect%22%20%22assent%20of%20faith%22&f=false

See pages 916-917 of the book accessible through this link. This is a commentary on the canon law and provides a good explanation of “religious submission of intellect and will.” It affirms what I’ve been saying, that I am not required to agree with Dignitatis Humanae.

I put in bold a couple significant parts below the canon law, though the bolds are not in the text, because the first point I bolded explains submission of intellect and the second explains that dissent is allowed when we believe there is a preponderance of evidence against it.

Here goes!

New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, by John P. Beal, James A. Coriden, Thomas J. Green

Canon 752 - Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.

Nearly all the teaching of the pope and the college of bishops is non-definitive. This includes papal encyclicals, letters, and constitutions, as well as the documents of ecumenical councils. This canon attempts to describe the response which the faithful ought to give to this solemn but non-infallible teaching. It clearly distinguishes this response from “the assent of faith,” which is due only to what is contained in divine revelation.

The canon uses the technical expression “religiosum obsequium intellectus et voluntatis,” here rendered as “a religious submission of the intellect and will.” An exact translation of obsequium is difficult, but “submission” is not the best one because it exaggerates the force of the Latin. Such English terms as “respect,” “deference,” “concurrence,” “adherence,” “compliance,” or “allegiance” would be better translations of obsequium.

The point is not precision of language so much as the appropriate response to truth. The pope and the college of bishops exercise their authentic teaching authority even when they teach in a non-definitive manner. The proper reception of that teaching is usually acceptance, because the teaching enjoys a strong presumption of correctness. However, that same teaching authority has been mistaken in the past, for example in regard to the teachings of Galileo Galilei, and almost surely will be mistaken sometimes in the future. Hence, it would be wrong to expect the faithful to give absolute or unconditional obedience to it. That is what the canon points out: what is due to this authentic but non-infallible teaching is not the assent of faith but a respectful religious deference of intellect and will, and an avoidance of teachings which do not concur with it. The canon leaves room for dissent when such honest disagreement is based on preponderant evidence.

The principal source for the canon is Lumen Gentium 25. Among other things, the conciliar text recalls that these teachings are not all of the same import or weight; the level of the doctrine is indicated by the nature of the document, the repetition of the teaching, and the tenor of the language used to express it. (See also UR 11 on the intrinsic hierarchy of truths.)

This canon should also be viewed alongside canon 212 .1 on the Christian obedience due to bishops as teachers of faith, and canon 218 on theological freedom of inquiry and expression, both in the section on the obligation and rights of all the Christian faithful.

A penal provision related to this canon was added to the 1983 code at the last minute; i.e., it did not appear in its present form in the draft approved by the Commission for Revision in 1981. Canon 1371 .1 provides for the possible punishment, after official admonition, of one who pernaciously rejects the kind of non-definitive teaching described in canon 752. This intemperate provision ill accords with the duty and freedom to search for truth affirmed above in canons 748 and 218. It gives the impression that the Church is intolerant of legitimate debate or opposed to the development of doctrine. This punitive provision was not included in the 1990 Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (cf. CCEO 1436 .2).

Lief, another source that might help you understand the varying degrees supplied by the Holy Spirit to the magsterium is the “Church of the Word Incarnate” by Cardinal Charles Journet. Its used by the FSSP in Nebraska as their ecclesiology book. Its an exercise in speculative theology about the aspects of jurisdiction.

This book is actually available for free in its entitirety on EWTN’s library.

The assistance supplied by the Holy Spirit is in direct connection to how close the subject or teaching is to the deposit of faith. See page 365 in this book. It really lays it out.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Yosupman, thanks for the suggestion. Here’s the book link from EWTN: ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/CHWORDIN.HTM

This presentation of the book doesn’t have the text broken up into page numbers. Would you tell me what chapter and section you’re referring to?

 

[RunningMan]

Well, it’s not about what you or I personally think, rather the issue is that Church teaching can never contradict itself. But perhaps these apparent contradictions will one day be explained to us better by the hierarchy.

I see this assertion occasionally- that Church teaching cannot contradict itself- and I’m always curious as to the origin of the claim.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia on this very subject:

Infallibility: In general, exemption or immunity from liability to error or failure; in particular in theological usage, the supernatural prerogative by which the Church of Christ is, by a special Divine assistance, preserved from liability to error in her definitive dogmatic teaching regarding matters of faith and morals. newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

By definition then, only definitive dogmatic may not contradict itself (i.e. Church teaching). Most doctrine is neither definitive nor dogmatic- meaning that it is not preserved from liability to error and therefore can be contradictory.

In fact there is precedence for contradictory doctrine within the very council being discussed in this thread. Nostra Aetate reversed Church teaching regarding collective guilt of the Jews.

Statement from Eugene J. Fisher, associate director of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs and consultor to the Holy See’s Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews:

"The condemnation of the charge of collective guilt against the Jews was on of the most dramatic and theologically significant moments of the Second Vatican Council.” americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=3413

Statement from the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (1975):

“Much of the alienation between Christian and Jew found its origins in a certain anti-Judaic theology… The first major step in this direction was the repudiation of the charge that Jews were and are collectively guilty of the death of Christ. Nostra Aetate and the new Guidelines have definitely laid to rest this myth… Correctly viewed, the disappearance of the charge of collective guilt of Jews pertains as much to the purity of the Catholic faith as it does to the defense of Judaism.” usccb.org/seia/statement_catholic-jewish.pdf

Quote from John Paul II’s 1997 address to scholars assembled by the Holy See to study together “The roots of Anti-Judaism in the Christian Milieu”:

“**Erroneous and unjust interpretations **of the New Testament regarding the Jewish people and their alleged culpability have circulated [in the Christian world] for too long, engendering feelings of hostility toward this people." americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=3413

If all doctrine were guaranteed to be consistent, there would be no need to differentiate between fallible and infallible teaching. All teaching would be infallible and that which was contradictory would simply be in error without being labeled “fallible” and considered “not preserved from liability to error”.

 

[Just_Lurking]

I see this assertion occasionally- that Church teaching cannot contradict itself- and I’m always curious as to the origin of the claim.

It is also the case that the Church can never contradict prior infallible teaching, even if subsequent teaching is not infallible in itself. Lumen Gentium 25 states, “To these [infallible] definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith.”

So, for an infallible definition, the Holy Spirit does two things: (1) Guarantees that the definition is true; and (2) Guarantees that the Church will never teach in the future anything contradictory to that infallible definition.

In other words, non-infallible teaching can be wrong. But it can never be wrong because it contradicts prior infallible teaching. This is because of the action of the Holy Spirit with regard to that prior infallible teaching.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

I have a question. I’ve spent a good deal of time in this thread working out whether or not the Church teaches it’s allowed to disagree with non-infallible parts of Dignitatis Humanae. Judging from the evidence I dug up in the New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, along with other resources we’ve been discussing, it seems to me that such disagreement is permissible.

Now I have a different question. Is a Catholic truly committing heresy by believing the reverse, that civil religious freedom is an inherent right of man?

I agree with the near constant teaching of the Church before Vatican II that it is not an inherent right flowing from man’s dignity. Man has a right to do good, not to do evil, as Dignitatis Humanae affirms, but man (as many previous popes have affirmed) does not have an inherent civil right to spread error.

HOWEVER, that said, I would like to look at some historic examples of cases where disagreement over Sacred Tradition was held to be legitimate.

The Dominicans and Franciscans had great disagreements over whether Mary was Immaculately Conceived until the 19th century, when the Dominicans assented that she was Immaculately Conceived, and then a few decades later this was formulated as a dogma. But many great saints, including Thomas Aquinas and Catherine of Sienna, did not believe she was immaculately conceived. At least one of the popes commanded the Dominicans and Franciscans not to call each other heretics over this difference, that good Catholics had the right to disagree on this point as they were working forward in the development of Church doctrine. After the dogma was defined, of course, no further disagreement was permissible.

Another example is Transubstantiation. While from the beginning of the Church, Catholics held that the Eucharist, upon consecration, became the Real Presence of God, His very Flesh and Blood, the exact method by which this transformation took place was not wholly clarified. Transubstantiation was a model based on Greek philosophy, but people in the beginning of the Church didn’t talk about “accidents” or “substance,” didn’t have all these ideas defined. Disagreement over Transubstantiation was held to be legitimate too, if I’m not mistaken, for quite some time before this teaching was dogmatically defined.

Other disagreements also have existed, which were held legitimate, about Church Tradition. The exact nature of the Papacy’s authority, for instance, was developed over many centuries, though one can see that the basic principles were there at the beginning of the Church. The nature of its infallibility was not all hammered out at the beginning of the Church’s existence, though. There has been a “development of doctrine” since the beginning of the Church. False opinions have been tolerated over long periods of time during the development of that doctrine, before the Church has been ready to deliver an official position.

I’ll continue in the next post.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

I wonder if we might be in the same position today to what I described above with regard to “religious freedom.” Some of the Early Church Fathers supported religious freedom. There are a wide variety of opinions among them on the subject, from what I’ve researched. The Church solidified its position pretty thoroughly in the 4th through 6th centuries, it seems to me. For most of the Church’s history, the position has been that error has no intrinsic rights, though civil authorities may permit its propagation depending on the circumstances.

In modern times, with the nature of government as well as social structure going through radical changes, with globalization eroding the distinctions between nations and with governments passing through phases of democracy, dictatorship, republic, communism and other varieties of forms, with the balance of power shifting a great deal over time, we live in an era where we don’t have “Catholic states” in the same way we did and the Church’s traditional position on religious freedom can’t be meshed with new government forms when they exclude her rights to power, as they just about universally do.

I wonder if this is a time where uncertainty about religious freedom should not be called “heresy” any more than disagreeing with the Immaculate Conception was legitimately called “heresy” for over a thousand years. Archbishop Lefebvre, from what I’ve read, accused the modern teaching of “bordering on heresy,” but never outright condemned it as heresy. the-american-catholic.com/2009/02/22/pope-benedict-the-sspx-and-the-dispute-over-religious-freedom-and-church-state-relations/

I’ve read that even though the Church’s position about Baptism by Desire was defined in a dogma at the Council of Trent, the Church STILL does not condemn as heretics those people who disagree with the teaching. How this can be, I personally can’t figure, but if it’s true it shows how vast the Church’s tolerance and mercy can be.

Are we living in a time, considering the great upheaval, confusion and secularism of our era, where the kind of disagreement about this issue that existed in the Early Church can validly be held? In the Early Church, men were canonized as saints whether they agreed with religious freedom or not. It wasn’t a matter back then where one could say, “because you disagree with the Church’s Tradition on this matter, you are a heretic.” Archbishop Lefebvre hasn’t even said that in modern times, as far as I can tell.

I wonder if the old disagreements that existed in the Early Church can still find a legitimate place in modern times, considering the darkness of the modern world and the place the Church holds for disagreement when working its way forward in its doctrinal understanding, even when Sacred Tradition has a firm witness on the true opinion (as it did with the Immaculate Conception and Transubstantiation, in my opinion).

I don’t know the answer to this question. I simply raise it to learn what other people’s thoughts are. I would feel much better in my heart if I could compare the disagreements of the Early Church on religious freedom with those of today. In both cases, the Catholic Church has been under great pressure from persecutions and attacks from the devil. In both cases, it has been in a pagan world of corruption that is attacking the values of its members. In both cases, the Church has tried to reach out to that world and convert it to faith in Jesus Christ. In both cases, we also have had great bishops (compare John Paul II and Pius IX) who disagreed about religious freedom.

Considering the parallels and the lack of an infallible dogma on this topic, I would feel better in my heart if rather than struggling with whether or not Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI are heretics for their disagreement with other popes about religious freedom, I could instead look at this point of disagreement in the context of the Church’s current plight and see the Early Church’s differences on the subject as having a valid place in modern thought.

There are permissible differences over doctrine. I don’t know what to make of what’s permitted in the modern case, considering the authorities that have been brought to bear (popes and councils with contradictory teachings). I also see great, magnificent and saintly virtues in Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI. It seems likely to me that they will be canonized, or at least John Paul II. A requirement for canonization is orthodoxy. So is religious freedom really a matter where deviation consists of heresy? There is sometimes a legitimate place for disagreement, and saintly bishops of the Early Church have disagreed before on this matter.

I want to raise this matter on the thread for consideration and discussion.

 

[Lormar]

I have not read through this thread, so forgive me if these men have already been quoted pertaining to reconciling religious liberty with pre-VII.

FR.JOHN COURTNEY MURRAY: “THE COURSE OF THE DEVELOPMENT BETWEEN THE SYLLABUS OF ERRORS (1864) AND DIGNITATIS HUMANAE PERSONAE (1965) STILL REMAINS TO BE EXPLAINED BY THEOLOGIANS.” (Sorry for the caps)

Fr. Yves Congar: “It cannot be denied that a text like this does materially say something different from the Syllabus of 1864, and even almost the opposite of propositions 15 and 77-9 of the document.”

 

[Lief_Erikson]

I have not read through this thread, so forgive me if these men have already been quoted pertaining to reconciling religious liberty with pre-VII.

FR.JOHN COURTNEY MURRAY: “THE COURSE OF THE DEVELOPMENT BETWEEN THE SYLLABUS OF ERRORS (1864) AND DIGNITATIS HUMANAE PERSONAE (1965) STILL REMAINS TO BE EXPLAINED BY THEOLOGIANS.” (Sorry for the caps)

Fr. Yves Congar: “It cannot be denied that a text like this does materially say something different from the Syllabus of 1864, and even almost the opposite of propositions 15 and 77-9 of the document.”

Yes, what I was asking in my two posts digging this thread up again is whether there can be a legitimate place for disagreement about religious freedom today, or whether we must blast one another as heretics for our differences. I know that the Church has been tolerant of differences over some doctrines in the past, where there wasn’t a dogmatic definition already established. The Church holds that there is a legitimate place for disagreement amongst Catholics as the Church works her way forward in the knowledge of God’s ways. If this was not true, there could be no “development of doctrine,” but some disagreement can happen. I’m wondering whether or not religious freedom is one of those areas of legitimate disagreement.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Now I have a different question. Is a Catholic truly committing heresy by believing the reverse, that civil religious freedom is an inherent right of man?

I would say, objectively speaking, yes it does rise to the level of heresy. I say that based not only on the encyclicals you are familiar with, but specifically proposition # 15 of the Syllabus of Pius IX.
Lief:

I agree with the near constant teaching of the Church before Vatican II that it is not an inherent right flowing from man’s dignity. Man has a right to do good, not to do evil, as Dignitatis Humanae affirms, but man (as many previous popes have affirmed) does not have an inherent civil right to spread error.

Exactly right.
Lief:

HOWEVER, that said, I would like to look at some historic examples of cases where disagreement over Sacred Tradition was held to be legitimate. The Dominicans and Franciscans had great disagreements over whether Mary was Immaculately Conceived until the 19th century, when the Dominicans assented that she was Immaculately Conceived, and then a few decades later this was formulated as a dogma. But many great saints, including Thomas Aquinas and Catherine of Sienna, did not believe she was immaculately conceived.

Before a dogma is defined by the Church, theologians are allowed to debate the point. Once the Church has given a definitive statement, however, all debate must cease. In fact, after the Church has given a ruling, it is not even permitted to doubt the defined point.
Lief:

At least one of the popes commanded the Dominicans and Franciscans not to call each other heretics over this difference, that good Catholics had the right to disagree on this point as they were working forward in the development of Church doctrine. After the dogma was defined, of course, no further disagreement was permissible.

I think there is some wisdom in that. I have found that debating points of doctrine brings clarity. Therefore, allowing the debates to go on accomplishes a purpose. But once the dogma is defined, the debate ends.
Lief:

Another example is Transubstantiation. While from the beginning of the Church, Catholics held that the Eucharist, upon consecration, became the Real Presence of God, His very Flesh and Blood, the exact method by which this transformation took place was not wholly clarified. Transubstantiation was a model based on Greek philosophy, but people in the beginning of the Church didn’t talk about “accidents” or “substance,” didn’t have all these ideas defined. Disagreement over Transubstantiation was held to be legitimate too, if I’m not mistaken, for quite some time before this teaching was dogmatically defined.

Same answer as above. Before a dogma is defined, theologians are permitted to debate the point, but after the Church makes a definitive statement, all debate stops since the truth is known.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

I wonder if we might be in the same position today to what I described above with regard to “religious freedom.” Some of the Early Church Fathers supported religious freedom.

We must keep in mind that religious liberty is only false when it is applied to those who profess a false religion.

Our rights flow from our duties, while our duties correspond to the Rights of God. The following is the order:

• God’s Rights: God has the right to command certain things of man;
• Man’s duties: Man then has the corresponding duty to do what God commands;
• Man’s Rights: lastly, man has the right to the means necessary to fulfill his duties to God.

So, for example, God commands us to worship Him in a particular way (at Mass). Man then has a duty to obey this command of God. Lastly, man has the right to fulfill this duty toward God. Therefore, since Catholics belong to the true religion, and since they offer the form of worship that God commands, Catholics have the right to worship God at Mass. If a Communist government, for example, was to forbid Catholics from attending Mass they could ignore this unjust commandment of man and fulfill their duty to God by attending Mass. This is *true *religious liberty, as Pope Leo XIII discusses in Libertas.
Lief:

In modern times, with the nature of government as well as social structure going through radical changes, with globalization eroding the distinctions between nations and with governments passing through phases of democracy, dictatorship, republic, communism and other varieties of forms, with the balance of power shifting a great deal over time, we live in an era where we don’t have “Catholic states” in the same way we did and the Church’s traditional position on religious freedom can’t be meshed with new government forms when they exclude her rights to power, as they just about universally do. I wonder if this is a time where uncertainty about religious freedom should not be called “heresy” any more than disagreeing with the Immaculate Conception was legitimately called “heresy” for over a thousand years.

Great question, but it is mixing two different things. **We have to distinguish between what is morally wrong, and what is tolerated by the State. ** False worship is always morally wrong. As such, we can never say that man has a right to do it; however, due to circumstances (such as today), it is sometimes best for governments to permit false worship in order to avoid a greater evil. Even in Catholic states, they would only forbid false worship when the vast majority of the population was Catholic. If there were a lot of heretics or infidels the State would tolerate false worship… but tolerating an error is not the same as saying the person has an intrinsic right to the error. It would be a heresy to say a person has a right to practice a false religion, but it would not be a heresy to say that, based on the circumstances, false worship should be tolerated. It might seem like a subtle distinction, but in reality it is not.
Leif:

I’ve read that even though the Church’s position about Baptism by Desire was defined in a dogma at the Council of Trent, the Church STILL does not condemn as heretics those people who disagree with the teaching. How this can be, I personally can’t figure, but if it’s true it shows how vast the Church’s tolerance and mercy can be.

The reason is because baptism of desire was not defined directly. It was only alluded to at the Council of Trent, rather than dealt with directly. St. Alphonsus says it is de fide, and he bases this assertion in part of what the Council of Trent teaches, but since it was not dealt with directly, the Church permits people to debate it.
Lief:

In the Early Church, men were canonized as saints whether they agreed with religious freedom or not.

I think the religious freedom they advocated was either for Catholics (who have a moral right to religious liberty), or else religious toleration by the State for those of a false religion.

Remember, it is certainly not forbidden for a Catholic State, or any other State for that matter, to tolerate false worship. In fact, it is sometimes the best policy, as Pius XII says in Ci Reisce (which you should read). But what can never be affirmed is that a person has an inherent right to violate any of God’s commandments. As mentioned above, our rights flow from our duties, which themselves correspond to the Rights of God. Man never has an intrinsic right to violate any of God’s commandments, much less the first and greatest commandment.

 

[pnewton]

I would say, objectively speaking, yes it does rise to the level of heresy. I say that based not only on the encyclicals you are familiar with, but specifically proposition # 15 of the Syllabus of Pius IX.

I understand that the Syllbus taught consistent with what the Church had taught, but I did have a question. Was the proposition ever taught ex cathedra? I only ask because the definition of heresy only applies to matters of dogma, not doctrine.

In reference to the OP question, I think the fact that at least one theologian in the person of Pope Benedict XVI reconciles the teaching of Vatican II with tradition, shows that it can be done. I am hoping some of the talks now in progress will shed some light on this subject.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

I understand that the Syllbus taught consistent with what the Church had taught, but I did have a question. Was the proposition ever taught ex cathedra? I only ask because the definition of heresy only applies to matters of dogma, not doctrine.

That is a good question and one that I cannot give a certain answer to. In my honest opinion, I think that proposition 15 is infallible by virtue of at least the ordinary universal magisterium, if not the extraordinary magisterium. The syllabus as such is considered by some theologians to be infallible. Others only consider certain propositions to rise to that level. In my honest opinion, I think that even if the Syllabus as such is not infallible, proposition 15 is.

In reference to the OP question, I think the fact that at least one theologian in the person of Pope Benedict XVI reconciles the teaching of Vatican II with tradition, shows that it can be done. I am hoping some of the talks now in progress will shed some light on this subject.

I have personally been able to reconcile Dignitatis Humane with tradition. In other words, I have been able to interpret it in a way that is not contrary to what the Church teaches. However, it take some effort and a pretty clear understanding of theological distinctions to do it. An average person who reads the document will concludes that it advocates religious liberty for those who profess a false religion. It appears to say that due to man’s “dignity” he should be permitted to practice a false religion in public. If it is interpreted that way it is certainly false, if not formally heretical.

 

[pnewton]

It appears to say that due to man’s “dignity” he should be permitted to practice a false religion in public. If it is interpreted that way it is certainly false, if not formally heretical.

That would be my understanding too. Thank you for your honest answer.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Great question, but it is mixing two different things. **We have to distinguish between what is morally wrong, and what is tolerated by the State. ** False worship is always morally wrong. As such, we can never say that man has a right to do it; however, due to circumstances (such as today), it is sometimes best for governments to permit false worship in order to avoid a greater evil. Even in Catholic states, they would only forbid false worship when the vast majority of the population was Catholic. If there were a lot of heretics or infidels the State would tolerate false worship… but tolerating an error is not the same as saying the person has an intrinsic right to the error. It would be a heresy to say a person has a right to practice a false religion, but it would not be a heresy to say that, based on the circumstances, false worship should be tolerated. It might seem like a subtle distinction, but in reality it is not.

I fully understand the distinction. What I’m unclear about is whether holding untrue beliefs in this matter should be considered heresy. The Church’s bishops today certainly don’t think so. They seem to permit either view, while themselves holding to the one I believe to be wrong. There have been other times in the Church’s history where we have allowed false beliefs and true beliefs to battle each other together without condemning either side as heresy. While I know that once a definitive position has been reached, the debate should end, I also recognize that we live in times of great turbulence and the Church never has provided a dogma on this topic. So I wonder if during times such as these, a wrong belief on this matter is permissible.

I also have questions about definitive positions the Church might set forth. The Church’s leaders have given us a strongly declared position on religious freedom in the past which affirms what you and I believe. But her leaders today have given strongly declared positions saying things that sound very different. Is the old position truer because it’s older? Do the Church leaders of today not have the right to open the discussion again? Maybe they don’t have the right . . . I just don’t know the answer to those questions, so I’m wondering.

The reason is because baptism of desire was not defined directly. It was only alluded to at the Council of Trent, rather than dealt with directly. St. Alphonsus says it is de fide, and he bases this assertion in part of what the Council of Trent teaches, but since it was not dealt with directly, the Church permits people to debate it.

Ahhh, that makes sense. I do remember the definition mentioned Baptism by Desire but didn’t describe it. So that’s why disagreement on its meaning is allowed.

Thanks for clarifying that for me .
"Ultima Ratio:

I think the religious freedom they advocated was either for Catholics (who have a moral right to religious liberty), or else religious toleration by the State for those of a false religion.

Hmm. I don’t have the quotes in front of me now, so I couldn’t voice an opinion at the moment. Maybe.

Remember, it is certainly not forbidden for a Catholic State, or any other State for that matter, to tolerate false worship. In fact, it is sometimes the best policy, as Pius XII says in Ci Reisce (which you should read). But what can never be affirmed is that a person has an inherent right to violate any of God’s commandments. As mentioned above, our rights flow from our duties, which themselves correspond to the Rights of God. Man never has an intrinsic right to violate any of God’s commandments, much less the first and greatest commandment.

I agree with that. I’m just wondering whether disagreement regarding religious freedom is really so severe a flaw in one’s doctrine that it should be condemned as heresy. Bishop Lefebvre doesn’t appear to have gone that far, and if even he didn’t, I have doubts that we should either. This is something I don’t know enough about.